Honestly I’m so done with people who hate on vidhi. It just smacks of envy of the influence and access vidhi has. But you’re not gonna get influence and access by being some ideological puritan. Why on earth should a duly elected government work with advocacy organisations that hate them ? Adult politics is all about working with people who disagree with you and finding common ground. Vidhi has done this very well. Name one policy space in India that has accomplished as much as vidhi!

It’s obviously without peer - and that comes from drafting policy documents and yes - sometimes telling a babu or a minister exactly what to say in a speech.

CPR was a proper, independent think tank and the BJP ensured that they paid the price for it. Vidhi is just a glorified secretarial agency for the BJP. Please look at Arghya’s sudden position of “decolonisation”. Quite a coincidence that it coincides with J Sai Deepak’s book on the same subject and mirrors the RSS position? Then look at Vishu’s editorials on UCC etc.

This is how a typical Arghya Sengupta newspaper article looks now:

- X is a big problem in the country.

- The roots of X started in the 50s and continued till the early 2000s. Nehru, Rajiv Gandhi and Manmohan Singh themselves admitted their failures in tackling X.

- X has reduced a lot since 2014 and the present government has taken steps (acknowledged by the World Bank) but more needs to be done.

- Our recommendations are…

- This can help achieve the dream of Vikshit Bharat.

In other words, the ministers, as people’s elected representatives rightfully exercised the powers conferred upon them by the constitution by instructing the bureaucrats to do what they are bound to do under the constitution. I’m sorry, but what is the problem here? You may not like the privacy laws and how they were drafted. Fair enough. But the process followed was exactly how a democracy is supposed to operate. Vidhi did nothing that other civil society groups have not done before and after. Also, Vidhi has done a lot more than just being a part of the drafting of the privacy laws. No need for such blanket denunciations.

I am a final year student, most probably getting retained as an inhouse legal employee in a non-tech startup after my traineeship. But work environment is stagnant and toxic (Basically i wouldn't take it if i had offer from corporate firms/ policy institutes, but my CPI is bad). Also there isn't much to learn, drafting agreements and compliance work.

Since i get a lot of free time in work and only 2 day work from office, is there any possibility that i can try learning litigation side by side or policy maybe (i have interest in tech policy).

Also There is a rule that i can't practice in courts if am doing a job somewhere. so should i give the next AIBE exam or should give when i intent to practice in court.

WRONG INFO GUYS HAVE YOUR TALKED TNNLU STUDENTS, IN 2023 OUT OF 120 STUDENTS 43 STUDENTS HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THAT PPO IS 8 AND TRI LEGAL RECRUITED 8 STUDETNS, TNNLU IS COMING UP DESPITE BIASED GUIDANCE FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU. SLS PUNE I HAVE A RELATION SAYS HOSTEL FACILITY SUCKS COMPARING TO THE HOSTEL FEE THEY CHARGE. I AGREE SLS PUNE IS GOOD INTERMS OF EXPOSURE AND ALL AND PLACEMENTS ALSO BUT DON'T TRY TO POTRAIT TNNLU IS SOME SHIT PARDON MY FRENCH

its a boutique IP Firm. they have trademark and patent work mostly. if you're not from a science background as an intern they wont give you much patent work. they give decent amount of work most of the time. work culture is nice. people are nice. i heard the starting they give is 15k. they probably also get from client billings. base is 15k for a fresher and A1 A2 is about 30-40 and 60-70 I believe. not sure about the A1 and A2

"There are other countries in which one can do an equally good, if not better, LLM" : Hi I am an LLM aspirant and it would be very helpful if you could elaborate a bit more on this. I may be wrong but from my research online, many applicants ( For example: Law Clerks, Associates) do an LLM at Columbia/Harvard/Georgetown after having 1-2 years of work experience and are easily able to move laterally into US law firms/in-house roles in the US/UK.

It would be very helpful if you could provide a bit more clarity maybe if you do know more about other LLM degrees like Bucerius, Leiden etc pls do send in your thoughts!

Possibly. Actually, I'd go further and say, very likely (it would certainly be so if I were the Columbia administration). In any case, I'd take this as redirection rather than as a source of dejection. Doing an LLM in the U.S. is anyway unhelpful, in the sense that your chances for employment there (either as a legal practitioner or academic) are not improved at all compared to not doing one. So your time could be better employed doing something else. There are other countries in which one can do an equally good, if not better, LLM (I am no mindless patriot, so not including India in this, because our graduate level legal education is not worth writing home to mother about for other reasons). Those countries have equally good, if not in some cases better, faculty, resources and postgraduate law study culture than the U.S., who anyway view the LLM students in their unis with the same level of contempt that the NLUs in India do for their LLM students. I wouldn't shed too many tears over this, TBH.

Also, if you need any further reasons not to be too sad over this, I can tell you from detailed knowledge of the U.S. system that LLM students can be at an immense intellectual disadvantage in their universities, anyway. Take just one example: the Philosophy of Public Property seminar that Seana Shiffrin takes at UCLA. One constituency of students for this class is LLM students in Legal Philosophy, true. But that's a very small constituency. The other constituencies include: JD students and PhD students in the Department of Philosophy (remember, UCLA isn't a stand-alone law school like NLSIU, for example, so it has multiple degree-awarding faculties). All these other constituencies (JD and Philosophy PhD) of students have better philosophical training than at least most Indian law students going there (to the U.S., that is) for an LLM. Combine that with the curve grading policy that many Indian universities have copied from the Americans, the complexity of content for a seminar like this and you get a recipe of high chances of not being able to do well. Tell me, considering just one career - academia and considering if you wanted to do that abroad: taking other factors into account (difficulties for getting selected to an SJD (U.S. law PhD programme), these structural disadvantages in the LLM environment, the fact that SJD graduates (even from the best American universities) are basically never hired in the U.S.), why would you even want to go to a system that disadvantages you at every turn, even if they are giving you some faltu (in the larger scheme of things) financial aid amount to study? Seems to me like the disadvantages outweigh the advantages (speaking as someone who has benefitted from LLM-level teaching in a country that is neither the U.S. nor India from someone who did both an LLM and SJD from Yale).

1. Yes, absolutely this is awesome news! An unexpected good thing. This is the thing with the Americans and British: they will play around with parts of systems that you least expect them to play around with! Previous quota for government officials? Serious thumbs down. Declaration of ineligibility for government officials now? Also thumbs down, however. Too blanket.

2. The voting pattern clearly shows:

▮▮▮

A more relevant question here may be as to whether Indians’ participation (government or non-government) in international academic programmes like these has delivered any meaningful result for governance in India so far. Otherwise, all that is achieved here is the mis-use of public money to subsidise a bunch of careerists.

Tier 2 city expenses:

Rs 400 to 700 for movie plus popcorn and coke, more if you have gourmet popcorn. Add Uber fare.

Rs 600 to 900 for a basic pizza.

Clothes: 2,000 for a cheap-ass shirt.

GST on every fucking thing.

So how do you guys survive in Delhi and Mumbai on 1 lakh salaries? Seems like chicken shit to me even with the recent income tax exemptions.

Not the number of people placed, that is accurate. There are exactly 6 people still left who had signed up for placement from the beginning and have interned towards that goal. If someone wanted to study for the judiciary exam for example and didn't intern at any firm for four years, nor built up their CVs and all of a sudden they wake up before day zero and want to get placed in a T1 firm, then nobody can help them.

What kind of people are you! You claim to be like the best western universities of the world, but behave like the dirtiest local politics players in India. I have studied at a reasonably okay western uni for a number of years - enough to know some of the inside gossip of it - and nobody gives a fuck about the equivalent of this inane nonsense. Faculty generally care about whether they'll be allowed to continue researching and teaching in the way that seems best to them, students just will advocate for anything that they feel the uni isn't giving them just as they would under any regime. We certainly would never have thought of going on an anonymous social media site and publishing something like this, and even if we had, we'd never have assumed (like you seem to be doing) that it would interest anybody at all!

Your criteria for college selection is the antithesis of a good education. And you are asking us to recommend a college that is so poorly run where students will never have to show their faces in class or do anything that leads to personal development? Why are you doing this to yourself and to us? Do yourself a favour. Prepare for NLSAT-LLB or CUET-UG in whatever time you have left and join a decent place where you will have a nice academic and friendly experience. You are too young to waste your adult life that has just begun by joining fraudulent colleges where no regard is paid to your professional and personal development.

This isn’t the sort of thing that can be made mandatory. Private universities and NLUs charge students a fee called a moot court fee - it’s that money that’s used to reimburse fully or partially the expenses of teams. Government universities that do not charge such fees are under no obligation to pay for a moot.

The real issue boils down to only a handful seniors within the non TD camp. Why blame the entire bnf for the lack of self awareness amongst these handful seniors who are living in their own bubble and trying to make life miserable for people within their team and also around them.

The question you need to ask yourself is... Why ? If it's important then do it now, if not, then forget about it. People have gotten jobs with and without papers. The only place it's important is academia, and even there it's not mandatory, since some professors who's job depends on writing papers, haven't for a decade. So don't fret. Also, always remember, Quality>Quantity.

how do you even get hired "directly"? through a contact?

anyway, i am unsure how an employer may think of you. If you are being offered substantially low compared to your peers, anybody would be sus about your hiring making it difficult for you to negotiate. And jumping to another t-1 role would mean stagnating your growth. Its a tough spot. Catching up is diffciult but never impossible. Deliberate on other factors too, i.e., how much you like your job, WLB, location etc, and then compare to your job offers and see if the pay difference actually makes sense. If it does not, maybe stick around and be patient for a few more months until you get that hike which would make it easier for you to switch